We’ ve been viewing a lot associated with discussion in the news about Facebook, data and personal privacy following the social media company’ s disclosure of the misuse of its data simply by Cambridge Analytica, which ran extremely targeted ads for the Trump marketing campaign in the 2016 election. Now, in order to placate regulators, investors and customers, Facebook has changed its policies regarding third-party data, and more changes may be in the works.
I’ ve written extensively regarding the power of third-party data and exactly how effective and necessary it is to get personalized marketing. You won’ capital t be surprised, then, to find which i support using third-party data within marketing programs.
Actually I encourage it because it can make your messages more relevant, plus relevancy is what consumers want over everything else. What they don’ t really want, however , is manipulation.
The furor, as I see it, is focused on the use of data to manipulate. That’ h the essence of “ weird data” that I’ ve cautioned marketers about using.
What’ s the long-term effect on Facebook and data sharing?
At this point, nobody knows. We’ re still in the early stages associated with learning what’ s happening and exactly what the implications are. Facebook TOP DOG Mark Zuckerberg will be facing congressional hearings in the United States and potentially in the united kingdom as well.
The latest information is that Facebook is removing third-party data sources — from agents like Epsilon and Acxiom — from its Custom Audiences targeting.
Whether this is a smart proceed or a short-term mistake has generated much dialogue in our offices and the industry overall. Will advertising endure? Will marketers get more stupid? (By this I mean that they wouldn’ capital t be able to target messages effectively, that could generate a consumer revolt. )
One thing is clear: Facebook is definitely reacting to an overreach by a merchant by going backward in a data-driven world that’ s relentlessly continuing to move forward.
It’ s an industry correction, not a stopper
That’ s i9000 my take. We’ re viewing a correction that’ s happening in the same way it does in the stock market. Whenever stock values get unsustainably higher, a selloff typically results. However, in the short term, it would seem that this selloff proceeded to go a bit too deep.
However there’ s no ignoring customers. It’ s a given that they will alter their expectations and behavior concerning privacy when it affects them individually. As we’ ve seen in previously data breaches, whether data had been stolen or hacked, that’ ersus when it all gets real meant for consumers.
Three adjustments the Facebook-data issue should encourage
1 . Customers won’ t delete their information or leave Facebook, but they may respond to transparency
As I’ ve said, customers want relevance over everything. They’ ve shown this preference repeatedly, whether by choosing more customized online experiences in general or simply by editing their email preferences or even whatever’ s on offer. Everything can be customized to who they are, where these are and what they want.
The particular advances in data science at this point give marketers sufficient information in making good decisions when targeting messages, whether it involves first-, second- or even third-party data.
I actually don’ t see that changing. I actually don’ t see marketers leaving third-party data or propensity modeling to drive decision-making. I also don’ capital t see consumers demanding that online marketers stop using their data. What I perform see is that consumers want relevance and transparency, not narcissistic adjustment.
Remember when Acxiom debuted its “ About the Data” portal? For the first time, a major data agent gave consumers the tools to see the information it had collected on them, to alter or update it or to get it removed.
Did customers pull out their data en ton like a bank run in the Depressive disorders? No . They updated their info to make it more accurate. I expect Fb will follow suit to give consumers a lot more control over their data. ( Google already does . ) This falls in line with the Western Union’ s General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), which requires manufacturers to cede more control over information and privacy to EU customers.
I don’ to believe that Facebook will limit information access for advertisers or modify privacy settings to be fully within compliance with GDPR globally, however the company will continue to move towards greater transparency and consumer manage.
While a few notable Facebook users recently deleted their particular presence on Facebook (I’ meters looking at you, Elon Musk), I actually don’ t see consumers subsequent suit. Why not? Because of FOMO — fear of missing out. They don’ big t want to leave Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or Snapchat because they’ m miss all the photos from their friends’ dogs’ birthday parties.
2 . Consumers must identify their culpability
Consumers are angry about how their information has been handled, and they should be. Yet consumers played a big role within handing over more data compared to they realized.
As the furor over Facebook data grand, some consumers will tweak their particular data and adjust their configurations. But then I expect they’ lmost all go right back to playing “ Candy Crush” and taking all those deceptively inane quizzes that taken out so much personal data so without pain.
This is where consumers should shoulder their share of the fault for the loss of data privacy. 1 reason we’ re in the clutter we are is that consumers don’ big t pay attention to the information they’ re giving out. Often , they simply agree to Conditions and terms without reading the fine print, even if game developers ask for access to many methods from their contact information to their buddies list.
Teens, specifically, are overly trusting. Our own 2017 Consumer Digital Usage plus Behavior Study found that while sixty-five percent of all US consumers state they read the terms and conditions before getting games and apps, teens had been considerably more trusting than their parents.
They’ re keen on the games and apps they could download. In general, consumers are not focusing, and then they act surprised that will information about them is publicly obtainable. It’ s the consequence of an discrepancy in the value exchange of their information.
3. Customers must keep the heat on information
In this lifestyle of “ ready-fire-aim” news as well as the 24-hour news cycle that rotates out of control, it might well be this story and its implications will be changed by the next scandal before we are able to truly make sense of it.
Did the Target data breach harm the company in the long run? No . Is Experian still in business after it uncovered the data of millions of consumers? Indeed.
This time, consumers should keep this problem in the spotlight and keep pressing for change and more control.
One reason we don’ t have privacy legislation that’ s as strict as Canada’ s Anti-Spam Law (CASL) or even GDPR is that consumers aren’ to screaming for it. There’ s already been no significant push for comparable legislation here, beyond the relatively weak set of CAN-SPAM laws and regulations.
Overall: It’ s in consumers’ fingers now
Yes, information collectors must be held accountable for the way they collect and use data. We require more transparency. Yes, we want Tag Zuckerberg to appear in front of Congress plus answer questions about how Facebook gathers, shares and protects its users’ data.
At the same time, even though, we consumers also must open up a line of communication with Our elected representatives to explain why we give out information unheedingly, why we need our information protected and what we are willing to perform to make that happen.
Opinions expressed in this post are those of the guest author and never necessarily Marketing Land. Staff writers are listed here .
If you liked What is the future of consumer data now that Fb is pulling back? by Ryan Phelan Then you'll love Marketing Services Miami